Gulliver's Travels

Reading Gulliver's Travels, one would think that Jonathan Swift was a misanthrope. He does not color mankind with a friendly brushstroke when he describes the behavior of the natives he meets and compares it with humanity back home.

Broken into four parts:

(I) Following a shipwreck, Gulliver famously finds himself on the island of Lilliput where he is the prisoner of 6 inch tall people. In exchange for his release he agrees to help the king defeat his enemies on the nearby island of Blefusco, which Gulliver does by capturing their navy.

Gulliver finds the long war between Lilliput and Blefusco to be trivial and foolish, similar to many European wars he has observed - especially concerning religion. The Lilliputian war began over the interpretation from their holy book on how to open eggs: on the big end or small end. The factions (Big-Endian and Little-Endian) cannot simply allow an individual to freely choose which end is best suited for themselves.

Gulliver is disgusted when the Lilliputians demand that he destroy the people of Blefusco. This decision, along with jealously, courtly intrigue and politics force Gulliver to leave Lilliput.

Before leaving, Gulliver comments that he admires the Lilliputians for placing morality over ability in their government officials, since people with great ability but no morals would quickly subvert government to their own needs. However, "moral" people still make bad decisions.















(II) Gulliver's next journey is to Broddingnag, a race of giant humans 12 times his size. Many of the giants regard him as a novelty, like a toy, and display contempt for Gulliver's intelligence and ability. The king of the giants, after speaking with Gulliver about the English policital system, concludes that, "ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislature (in England)". When Gulliver talks about the secret of gunpowder with his majesty, the king expresses outrage that such a little man could know a secret which would equalize all races. In affect, making a small man (or commoner) as powerful as a king (or a giant).

(III) After leaving the race of giants, by way of a bird carrying off his cage, Gulliver's next notable adventure is reaching a floating island. The floating island is home to royalty and it circles a much larger "normal" island full of commoners and lesser nobility. Swift describes an ingenious way for keeping the floating island in the sky - it uses the earth's magnetic properties to levitate, sort of like a futuristic mag-lev train. The king of the floating island extracts tribute from the larger island below, and if he doesn't receive it he will hover above their lands depriving them of sunlight and rain. It is possible that he could use more force and crush the inhabitants below with his floating island. However, this could destroy his own floating island as well, so he doesn't choose to do this.

In this society, technology and science are considered the supreme good (at the expense of common sense). Devices are created at the academy that seem unproductive, wanting or are harmful - although some are quite clever.

Gulliver also meets a group of people who can speak to the dead. Gulliver summons eminent philosophers and orators, generals and politicians to talk with him. In another area, Gulliver finds a race that is immortal. Unfortunately, this race ages normally and so they spend the majority of their long life in the condition of extreme physical old age.













(IV) Gulliver finally encounters the Houyhnhnms. This is a race of intelligent horse-like creatures living on an island who cannot lie and prize reason above emotion. They exist in contrast to the barbaric, uncivilized humans known as "Yahoos" who respond to only to their base desires. The Yahoos are filthy, unshaven and are either running around free or used for physical labor by the Houyhnhnms.

The natives find that since Gulliver resembles the Yahoos he must be similar to them in intelligence, ability and behavior. They are surprised when Gulliver learns their language and is capable of sophisticated reasoning. Gulliver quickly identifies with the Huoyhnhnms and their culture. After all his travels, he begins to express his resentment for what he formerly called civilization in England.

He admits that in his land, people and princes fight wars over things that seem beyond reason. "Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh: whether the juice of a certain berry be blood or wine: whether whistling be a vice or a virtue: whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire: what is the best color for a coat?"

The yahoos have conflicts too, over the possessions of shining stones and inebriating substances. These are things which cause the emotional desires of the yahoos to replace reason, something that the Huoyhnhnms cannot understand.

Gulliver declares that he never wants to associate again with humans, but he is forced to leave because of distrust among the Huoyhnhnms. He is, after all, a Yahoo.

Having returned to England, Gulliver takes no joy in seeing his wife and he writes "the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt" which is likely a result of Gulliver's lost faith in mankind. Gulliver seems to have given up on men, and he soon devotes his time to a horse he has recently purchased.

Jonathan Swift and Gulliver's Travels

It is quite interesting that "Gulliver's Travels" is often found in the children's section of many bookstores. Most of us know this iconic tale as the story of a giant Englishman surrounded by the miniature Lilliputians trying to subdue him. Although Gulliver's Travels (1726) is easy to read without dissecting it, I do not think that Jonathan Swift's (1667-1745) original audience was young English children.

Swift was an Englishman born in Dublin, the son of a father who backed the losing side in the English Civil War. Following his education in Oxford, Swift became a potent essayist and political activist for the conservative Tory party. He railed against the English treatment of the Irish and clashed with the Whig establishment in London. Most of his political diatribes were satirical; for example, he suggested that the English (Whig) solution for the overcrowding of Ireland would be for the Irish to sensibly eat their own children.

Gulliver's Travels was written to mock the exaggerated travel stories that were fashionable during this time of foreign discovery. In addition, Swift also portrays royalty, government officials, and humanity in general, with cutting mockery.

Gulliver describes several different groups of "people" he meets on his travels. These include the race of miniature humanoids 6 inches tall that we are most familiar with. He also reaches shores full of humans 12 times our height, a race of men that do not die, a group that can converse with dead people, a flying island, and finally an island populated by intelligent horses where humans are considered imbeciles and treated as slaves.

Locke: Concerning Civil Government

I wish I had the time to devote a serious review to this work which I found enlightening and also worthy of discussion.

Natural Law John Locke says that before we had governments, justice was determined by "Natural Law", e.g. do onto others as they have done onto you. We were our own judge, jury and executioners if someone wronged us.

The problem with Natural Law is that we cannot be dispassionate and fair judges of what we deserve in compensation for our loses. That is one reason why we developed government, to have an impartial judge and executor of natural law. Similarly, government gives the weaker party the ability to overcome the stronger in the name of justice.

Property

Property is the result of labor. Acorns fallen from a tree in the wild belong not to everyone but to the one who collects them. If I kill a rabbit in the wilderness it is now my property (according to Locke), since I used my labor for the activity.

Can I take as much "property" as I want? Locke says we should take as much as we need. In Natural Law this would only be enough food that won't spoil or go to waste. This makes sense, since why would you collect more than you can consume? However, since we do gather more than we need, we developed money to represent property. The protection of property and money is the job of government.

Laws and Rulers

.
.
.
.
.
.
..





"All men are by nature equal", says Locke, and that includes monarchs. In fact, leaders have a special obligation to follow the law and maintain equality.

Laws should not serve as a limitation to our freedom but as guideposts. The law makes us free by protecting us and our property. Locke says that laws act sort of like parents protecting children and they should only limit to the extent that we do not affect someone elses freedom or property.

Monarchs and other executives should also act like parents, as kings came originally from patriarchal societies. However, even though we are told to "honor our parents" by God, they should only receive the honor they deserve.

Each of us is born into a governmental system, but we do not have to accept or adopt this system. When we leave the age of minority we should acknowledge the right of this government to rule us or we should leave the protection of this society. If we recognize our government, we should demand that it remain just and follow its own laws. If it does not, we are obliged to rebel against it.

Revolution
Locke states that we have no obligation to follow laws or the authority of a ruler that was not appointed by our representatives to govern us. This is probably what people thought after the 2000 presidential race. Similarly, unjust laws should not be followed. However, Locke admits that it may be difficult to determine what is "unjust" and that may vary on your point of view.

Locke's treatise made great strides in recognizing individual rights. I want to fault him for not going far enough but that would be, in the context of history, unfair. From everything I have read in the last 12 months, Locke's treatise has been one of the most interesting and thought provoking works.

John Locke

John Locke (1632-1704) was a British philosopher whose innovative ideas on the purpose and regulation of government has given him the title of spiritual father of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. John Locke is also recognized as the founder of British Empiricism which hypothesized that innate ideas about the world do not exist. The only knowledge we can obtain is through sensory perception and experience.

During Locke's lifetime England played witness to many revolutionary thoughts on the function and role of government. The English Civil War (1641-1651) between the monarchy and the Parliament resulted in the execution of the King of England Charles I in 1649 and the establishment of a commonwealth (sans monarch). Eventually Charles II, son of Charles I, was restored to the throne in 1660, but his son (James II) was later overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This resulted in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy with Parliament gaining significant power. In the following two years (1689 and 1690) Locke wrote his treatise "Concerning Civil Government".

John Locke wanted to understand why we needed government and how it could be useful. He thought that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and property. Property is what we accumulate through our labors and no one should be able to take that away from us (not even the government). Our rights include life, liberty and the freedom to rebel against unjust governments. While this did justify the revolutions in England, it also supported the American revolution a century later.

Locke also had the novel idea that government should have its authority separated into different branches and be regulated between these units by checks and balances. The executive branch would have judicial responsibilities and the other division was made of Parliament, which had the authority to remove (impeach) the executive. This is very similar to our government, except of course that the judicial branch is separate from the executive (depending on who you ask).

Locke's ideas had an enormous influence on our founding fathers and it is fascinating to see the progenitor of our own constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Bacon, Locke and Newton, I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception".

Shakespeare: Hamlet

The story of Hamlet is one that was known for generations, long before Shakespeare picked up his quill. In fact many of Shakespeare's works are re-tellings of familar tales or historical events. However it is, along with King Lear and Macbeth, one of Shakespeare's best plays.

..

Warning: spoilers ahead. Hamlet's uncle Cladius secretly murders Hamlet's father, becomes the king of Denmark and marries Hamlet's mother. Hamlet learns the truth of this murder, but is paralyzed by his own thoughts and words from acting to avenge his father's death. In the end Hamlet does kill Cladius, but his dithering means that seven other characters also die along the way through treachery, combat, accidents and suicide.

Hamlet is a complex, thoughtful character who finds himself immobilized by his self-reflections on the purpose and meaningfulness of life. In the end we are all food for worms and so life seems futile - "To be or not to be". Is it better to be alive and suffer misery or to be dead and enjoy a long sleep. Hamlet realizes that he will die, like all men, and he would have his life extinguish knowing that he did what he thought was right rather than doing nothing but enduring a mortal existence.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Reading Hamlet well-prepared with the vocabulary, historical background and double-entendres gave me the opportunity to appreciate the other subtitles in this play, as well as the grand story without being mired in misunderstood phases and words.

.

For example, when Hamlet yells at Ophelia, "get thee to a nunnery" this doesn't mean a convent - well it does - but also a whorehouse. When he calls Ophelia's father a fishmonger, Hamlet is not talking about a seller of fish per se, as a fish is another name for a prostitute. Not surprisingly, Hamlet's charm probably contributed to Ophelia's watery suicide.

.

A final thing about reading Hamlet that I found amusing was being surprised by a line that you have heard a hundred times, but you were still not prepared to see it suddenly jump out at you in your reading.

.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for a loan oft loses both itself and friend"

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks"

"Frailty, thy name is woman"

"I must be cruel to be kind"

Of course....

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

.

And Finally...

.

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;"

William Shakespeare

I never had a strong desire to read Shakespeare (1564-1616), the only work I read in high school was Romeo and Juliet. I found him abstruse, esoteric, inaccessible and I could not appreciate his language. I thought that anyone who expressed pleasure or appreciation in reading Shakespeare was more refined than myself, or merely pretentious.

Living in England for two years, and visiting Stratford-upon-Avon, was transformative for me. Being in the home of the Bard, and experiencing the reverence he was shown in the UK, made me want to give him a second chance. During my time in England I read Henry IV Part One, Macbeth and Julius Caesar and watched the The Merchant of Venice, The Tempest and Henry V. I also read a humorous biography by Bill Bryson, "Shakespeare: The World as Stage".

More recently I finished the more critical biography "Will in the World" written by Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt. This was an excellent resource for understanding Shakespeare, not only detailing how the events of his life shaped his writing, but also explaining hidden messages behind many of his most famous plays. Although there are great gaps in Shakespeare's life we do know where he was and what he was doing at some very specific dates and places. It is also possible to see how the spirit of the times in Elizabethan and Jacobean England influenced his works.

I do not subscribe to the theory that Shakespeare's works were ghost written by another author since we can clearly see how many of his greatest works were drawn from events in Will's own life. I agree that it is remarkable that an relatively uneducated, unrefined man from the boondocks could become the apotheosized master of the English language. However such success from obscurity to greatness could be said about many people in history: Lincoln, Napoleon, Einstein, Buffet, etc..

I could not appreciate nor understand Shakespeare in my youth. However, life's lessons and experiences have significantly improved my ability to relate to his words and enjoy them. Still, I find reading "Cliff Notes" before I tackle a piece invaluable, since the vocabulary and context of many words and phrases is concealed by the 400 years that have past since they were first recorded.

Reading outside the GBWW schedule

I recently realized I was perilously behind in my classical reading blog, especially in the Great Books of the Western World (GBWW) reading schedule. I have not stopped reading, but I have been diverted by books outside the GBWW series.

One contemporary book that I finished was the political/philosophical satire called "Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington"by Cathcart and Klein. This book targeted politicians and well-known polemicists who use illogical, evasive or deceptive arguments to persuade the public. Although I did enjoy it, I found it overtly partisan and not as entertaining as Carthcart and Klein's last book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar".

A more stimulating book was "Viva la Repartee" by Mardy Grothe. This collection of retorts, rejoinders and witty, pithy comebacks from celebrities, politicians and others was glued to my hands. It often made me think, "Why didn't I say that?" I think it did stir up some creative thoughts in me which I hope will surface when I need a riposte.

A modern classic I finished was "Empire Falls" by Richard Russo, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2002. This books describes a small, dying town in Maine and the characters that dwell in it. Since my formative years were spent in small towns I could easily relate to the situations the characters found themselves in. Divisions of wealth and class are much more apparent when you cannot escape from your own small world. The story was also well told and I found the denizens of this town to be vivid and sympathetic.

In our book club we read a classic of Victorian English literature, "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte. Published in 1847, this is the story of a young woman overcoming poverty, loneliness and distrust. By holding true to herself she becomes educated, develops close friends and eventually discovers love and becomes independently wealthy. This was a satisfying, but voluminous novel (nearly 600 pages) and Bronte's vocabulary required my dictionary's frequent consultation. This was a book I wanted to read and I am glad to have had the opportunity to enjoy it.


A final book that I finished in the last few months was the "The Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. This novel won the prestigious "Man Booker Prize" in 2002, which is awarded to the best work of English fiction produced that year by a "Commonwealth Nation" (e.g. UK, Canada). It is the story of a young Indian boy whose father is transporting his zoo from India to Canada when the ship carrying them sinks. The young boy, Pi, must then survive a long journey alone in a lifeboat, his only companion a hungry tiger. One of the more interesting parts of this book is how Pi decides to become a Christian, a Hindu, and a Muslim all at once, which provides some fun and thoughtful moments.

Montaigne - Customs, Education and Morality

Customs

Many people believe that their laws and customs are natural and universal and derive from reason. However, a studied inquiry will often reveal that the reasoning is flawed or stands on weak foundations. Moreover as we examine other cultures (as Montaigne did) we can see that our "truths" are not universally shared.

.

Montaigne describes the idyllic and pure lives of savages in the New World and says that compared to them we are barbarians. Some may be cannibals, eating their dead enemies, but how is that worse than the atrocities committed in the wars of religion in Europe (as well as the Inquisition). Many people mindlessly follow their customs without ever questioning them. Just because we do not understand something does not mean it is wrong. Likewise, the fact that we follow the rules and customs of our society does not validate their virtue.

Education

Montaigne describes his own education and says that too much emphasis is placed on memorizing details of little consequence. What students should be learning is good judgement.

We also need to be teaching practical knowledge and encourage students to use what they have learned.

"For wisdom is not only to be acquired, but also utilized" - Cicero.

Repeating quotes without comprehension also does not educate. Ironically, Montaigne quotes someone to support this.

.

"They have learned to speak from others, not from themselves" - Cicero

We should be selective in what we learn, but not exclusive. Some of the best thoughts come from "the lower end of the table".

Good and Evil

Montaigne said that good and evil are partially determined by our opinions. The three evils that many fear are Death, Pain and Poverty.

It is not sensible to fear death since it is natural and we are only afraid of the unknown. Pain is more difficult since it works the body against the soul. However, pain is often only experienced in the context of the situation. Pain for beauty, honor or wealth is not felt as strongly as when we experience pain in the absence of a future reward. Therefore pain appears to be some thing variable to the opinion of the sufferer.

Montaigne does not talk as much about being poor as he does about avarice and the accumulation and burdens of wealth. Montaigne was from a well-to-do family so he would know the latter better than the former. He says that being wealthy will not make you happy, it only changes your condition. Money is like wearing clothes to keep warm, the heat comes from you, not the clothes. Being happy comes from how we view and judge our own situation.